The old "economism" of 1894–1902 reasoned as follows. The Narodniks have been refuted. Capitalism in Russia has triumphed. Consequently, one cannot speak of political revolutions. Practical conclusion: either "workers—economic struggle, liberals—political struggle." This is a curtsey to the right. Or—instead of political revolution, a general strike for socialist transformation. This is a curtsey to the left, represented by a single, now forgotten, pamphlet by a Russian "economist" of the late 1890s{33}.

Now a new "economism" is being born, reasoning with analogous two curtseys: "to the right"—we are against "the right of self-determination" (i.e., against the liberation of oppressed peoples, against the struggle with annexations,—this has either not been thought through or not been settled). "To the left"—we are against the minimum program (i.e., against the struggle for reforms and democracy), because this "contradicts" socialist revolution.

More than a year has already passed since this emerging trend manifested itself before several comrades, namely at the Bern conference in spring 1915. Then, fortunately, only one comrade, who met with universal disapproval, insisted to the end of the conference on these ideas of "imperialist economism" and formulated them in writing in the form of special "theses." No one joined these theses{34}.

Subsequently, two more comrades joined the theses of the same comrade against self-determination (without recognizing the inseparable connection of this question with the general position of the "theses" just mentioned){35}. And the appearance of the "Dutch program" in February 1916, published in no. 3 of the "Bulletin of the International Socialist Commission"{36}, at once exposed this "misunderstanding" and again prompted the author of the initial "theses" to resurrect his entire "imperialist economism" once more as a whole, rather than in application to one supposedly "particular" point.

There arises an absolute necessity to warn the corresponding comrades again and again that they have gotten into a bog, that their "ideas" have nothing whatever in common either with Marxism or with revolutionary social-democracy. It is impermissible to leave the matter further "under a bushel": this means aiding ideological confusion and directing it in the worst direction toward half-measures, "particular" conflicts, endless "frictions," and so on. On the contrary, it is our duty to insist in the most unconditional and most categorical manner upon the necessity of thinking through and finally settling the questions that have been raised.

The editorial board of *Sotsial-Demokrat* in theses on self-determination (printed in German, as a reprint from no. 2 of *Vorbote*) purposely brought the matter into print in an impersonal but most thorough form, emphasizing especially the connection of the question of self-determination with the general question of the struggle for reforms, for democracy, of the impermissibility of ignoring the political side, and so forth.[17] In his remarks on the editorial theses on self-determination, the author of the initial theses ("imperialist economism") solidarizes himself with the Dutch program and thereby especially clearly shows himself that the question of self-determination is in no way "particular" as posed by the authors of the emerging trend, but is a general and fundamental question.

The Dutch program was received by representatives of the Zimmerwald Left on 5–8. II. 1916 at the Bern meeting of the International Socialist Commission{37}. Not a single member of this Left, not excepting Radek, expressed support for this program, because it combines, in disorder, such points as "expropriation of banks," and such as "abolition of trade tariffs," "elimination of the upper house of the senate," and so on. All representatives of the Zimmerwald Left unanimously, half-word, and even almost without words, merely shrugging their shoulders, passed by the Dutch program as obviously unsuccessful in its entirety.

The author of the initial theses, written in spring 1915, however, took such a liking to this program that he declared: "I said nothing essentially greater than this" (in spring 1915), "the Dutch figured it out": "they have the economic side—expropriation of banks and large-scale production" (enterprises), and the political—republic and so forth. Perfectly correct!"

In fact, the Dutch did not "figure it out," but gave a thoroughly unconsidered program. The sad fate of Russia is that some of our people seize precisely upon what is unconsidered in the very newest novelty…

To the author of the 1915 theses, it seems that the editorial board of *Sotsial-Demokrat* fell into contradiction when "itself" put forward "expropriation of banks" and even with the addition of the word "immediately" (plus "dictatorial measures") in § 8 ("Concrete Tasks"). "And how in Bern they scolded me for that very thing!"—exclaims, in indignation, the author of the 1915 theses, recalling the Bern disputes in spring 1915.

This author forgot and overlooked a "trifle": the editorial board of *Sotsial-Demokrat* in § 8 clearly analyzes two cases: I—socialist revolution has begun. Then, it is said there, "immediate expropriation of banks," and so forth. II case: socialist revolution is not beginning, and then one must wait before speaking of these good things.

Since socialist revolution in the sense indicated is, certainly, not yet begun now, the Dutch program is therefore absurd. And the author of the theses "deepens" the matter by returning ("every time on this very spot"…) to his old mistake: to transform political demands (such as "elimination of the upper house"?) into a "political formulation of social revolution."

Having worn a groove in the same spot for a whole year, the author has come to his old mistake. Here is the "nail" of his misadventures: he cannot figure out how to connect the arrived imperialism with the struggle for reforms and with the struggle for democracy—in just the same way as "economism" of blessed memory could not connect the arrived capitalism with the struggle for democracy.

Hence—complete confusion on the question of the "impracticability" of democratic demands under imperialism.

Hence—impermissible for a Marxist (and appropriate only in the mouth of an "economist" of labor-minded disposition) ignoring of political struggle now, here, at once, as always.

Hence—the stubborn property of "sliding" from recognition of imperialism into apology for imperialism (just as "economists" of blessed memory slid from recognition of capitalism into apology for capitalism).

And so on and so forth.

To analyze in full detail the errors of the author of the 1915 theses in his remarks on the editorial theses of *Sotsial-Demokrat* on self-determination is in no way possible, because every single phrase is false! One cannot write pamphlets or books in reply to "remarks" if the initiators of "imperialist economism" have worn a groove in one spot for a year and stubbornly do not wish to concern themselves with that about which it is their direct party duty to concern themselves, should they want to treat political questions seriously, namely: with the thought-through, integral exposition of what they call "our disagreements."

I am forced to limit myself to brief indications of how the author applies his fundamental error or how he "supplements" it.

It seems to the author that I contradict myself: in 1914 (*Prosveshchenie*{38}) I wrote that it is absurd to look for self-determination "in the programs of West European socialists",[18] whereas in 1916 I declare self-determination especially urgent.

The author did not think (!!), that these "programs" were written in 1875, 1880, 1891!{39}

Further, by §§ (of the editorial theses of *Sotsial-Demokrat* on self-determination):

§ 1. The same "economist" unwillingness to see and pose political questions. Since socialism will create an economic base for the elimination of national oppression in politics, therefore our author is unwilling to formulate our political tasks in this area! This is simply curious!

Since the victorious proletariat does not reject wars with the bourgeoisie of other countries, therefore the author is unwilling to formulate our political tasks in the sphere of national oppression!! All are examples of sheer violations of Marxism and logic; or, if you will, manifestations of the logic of the fundamental errors of "imperialist economism."

§ 2. The opponents of self-determination have become hopelessly entangled with references to "impracticability."

The editorial board of *Sotsial-Demokrat* clarifies for them two possible meanings of impracticability and their error in both cases.

The author of the 1915 theses, not even attempting to give his own understanding of "impracticability," that is, accepting our clarification that two different things are being confused here, continues this confusion!!

He connects crises with "imperialist" "politics": our political-economist forgot that crises existed before imperialism!..

To speak of the economic impracticability of self-determination means to confuse, clarifies the editorial board. The author does not respond, does not declare what he considers the economic impracticability of self-determination to be; he abandons the disputed position, jumping over to politics ("nevertheless" impracticable), although it has been made clear as day to him that politically both a republic and self-determination are in just the same way "impracticable" under imperialism.

Pressed here, the author "jumps" once more: he recognizes both republic and the entire minimum program only as a "political formulation of social revolution"!!!

The author refuses to defend the "economic" impracticability of self-determination, jumping over to politics. He transfers political impracticability to the question of the entire minimum program. Here again neither a grain of Marxism nor a grain of logic, except the logic of "imperialist economism."

The author wishes imperceptibly (without thinking it through himself and without giving anything integral, without troubling himself to work out his own program) to throw out the minimum program of the social-democratic party! Small wonder that he has worn a groove in one spot for a year!!

The question of struggle against Kautskianism is again not a particular, but a general and fundamental question of our time: the author has not understood the struggle against it. Just as "economists" turned the struggle against the Narodniks into an apology for capitalism, so the author turns the struggle against Kautskianism into an apology for imperialism (this also applies to § 3).

The error of Kautskianism lies in that it reformistically poses such demands and at such a moment, which cannot be posed otherwise than revolutionarily (whereas the author slips into representing the error of Kautskianism as the posing of these demands generally, just as "economists" "understood" the struggle against Narodnism in the sense that "down with autocracy" is Narodnism).

The error of Kautskianism lies in that it turns correct democratic demands backward, toward peaceful capitalism, rather than forward, toward social revolution (whereas the author slips into believing that these demands are incorrect).

§ 3. See above. The author also avoids the question of "federation." The same fundamental error of the same "economism": inability to pose political questions[19].

§ 4. "From self-determination follows the defense of the fatherland," the author insists stubbornly. His error here lies in that he wishes to turn the denial of defense of the fatherland into a template, to derive it not from the concrete-historical peculiarity of the given war, but "in general." This is not Marxism.

The author was told long ago, and he has not refuted this: try to think up such a formulation of the struggle against national oppression or inequality which would (the formulation) not justify "defense of the fatherland." You will not be able to do it.

Does this mean that we are against the struggle against national oppression, if from it one can derive defense of the fatherland?

No. Because we are not "in general" against "defense of the fatherland" (see the resolutions of our party[20]), but against glossing over this deceptive slogan the given imperialist war.

The author, in a fundamentally incorrect, unhistorical way, wishes (but cannot; he has had only attempts for a whole year here too…) to pose the question of "defense of the fatherland."

Speeches about "dualism" show that the author does not understand what monism is and what dualism is.

If I "unite" a shoebrush and a mammal, will this be "monism"?

If I say that to reach goal a, one must

в → a ← б

go from point в to the left, and from point б to the right, will this be "dualism"?

Is the position of the proletariat of oppressing and oppressed nations the same in relation to national oppression? No, it is not the same, not the same economically or politically, or in terms of ideas, spiritually, and so on.

What then?

This means that to one goal (the fusion of nations), from different starting points, some will go one way, others otherwise. The denial of this is "monism," uniting a shoebrush with a mammal.

"Proletarians of an oppressed nation must not be told this" (about self-determination), the author "understood" the theses as saying.

This is curious!! Nothing of the sort is said in the theses. The author either did not finish reading or did not think at all.

§ 5. See above on Kautskianism.

§ 6. The author is told about three types of countries in the whole world. The author "objects," catching "cases." This is casuistry, not politics.

Would you like to know the "case": "but what about Belgium"?

See Lenin and Zinoviev's pamphlet: there it is said that we would be for the defense of Belgium (even by war), if the concrete war were different.[21]

Do you disagree with this?

Say so!!

You have not thought through the question of why social-democracy is against "defense of the fatherland."

We are against it not for the reason it seems to you, because your posing of the question (attempts, not posing) is unhistorical. Here is my answer to the author.

To call "sophistry" the fact that we, justifying war for the overthrow of national oppression, do not justify the given imperialist war, waged on both sides for the strengthening of national oppression,—this means to use a "strong" little word, but not think one bit.

The author wants to pose the question of "defense of the fatherland" more "to the left," but what comes out (for a whole year now)—sheer confusion!

§ 7. The author criticizes: "the question of 'conditions of peace' in general is not touched at all."

What criticism this is: a question not touched that we do not even raise here!!

But here the question of annexations is touched upon and posed, about which the "imperialist economists" have become confused, this time together with the Dutch and Radek.

Either you deny the immediate slogan against old and new annexations—(no more "impracticable" under imperialism than self-determination; in Europe, as in the colonies)—and then your apology for imperialism passes from hidden to open.

Or you recognize this slogan (as Radek did in print)—then you have recognized the self-determination of nations under another name!!

§ 8. The author proclaims "Bolshevism on the West European scale" ("not your position," he adds).

I do not attach importance to the desire to hold on to the word "Bolshevism," because I know such "old Bolsheviks" that God preserve us. I can only say that the "Bolshevism on the West European scale" proclaimed by the author is, in my deep conviction, neither Bolshevism nor Marxism, but a small variant of the same old "economism."

In my view, this is the height of impermissibility and frivolousness, unpartisan conduct—to proclaim a new Bolshevism for a whole year and confine oneself to this. Is it not time to think through and give the comrades something that would coherently and integrally set forth this "Bolshevism on the West European scale"?

The author has not proven and will not prove the distinction of colonies from oppressed nations in Europe (in application to the given question).

In the case of the Dutch and P. S. D., the denial of self-determination is not only, and not even primarily, confusion, because Gorter in fact recognized it, as did the Zimmerwald declaration of the Poles, but rather the result of the special position of their nations (small nations with centuries-old traditions and pretensions to great-power status).

The height of lack of thought and naïveté—to adopt, repeat mechanically and without criticism what in others grew out of decades of struggle against the nationalist bourgeoisie deceiving the people. That is precisely what people adopted that cannot be adopted!

Written in August–September 1916.

First published in 1929 in the journal *Bolshevik*, no. 15
Signature: N. Lenin

Printed from the manuscript